Morning Ethics Warm-Up, 7/10/2018: The Freakout Cometh!

Good morning!

1. Are you freaking out?President Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh for the vacancy on the Supreme Court, a choice which, we had been assured by a succession of shameless hysterics on the Left and in the mainstream news media (but I repeat myself!) would doom women in the United States to living out “The Handmaiden’s Tale,” even before the judge, a case or the legal issues were a twinkle in Lady Justice’s eye. Why are hyper-partisan, irresponsible crazies like this taken seriously by anyone?

More to come, of course. At least they waited for the actual name of the judge: ABC tweeted out this before the announcement:

Facts? We don’t need no stinking facts!

(Nah, there’s no mainstream media bias….)

If you are freaking out, it means that you are a Democrat, either ignorant or dishonest about the legal system, and suffering from the late throes of Anti-Trump Mania, in which everything that this President does becomes an evil plot. Get help. It is unethical to spread panic and fury among your friends and associates.

A Facebook Friend, a woman, and a lawyer, was on social media within minutes of Judge Kavanaugh’s name being uttered calling for everyone to “write their Senator.” There is only one way, just one, this reaction can be justified: if you believe that only one political party has a legitimate role to play in American politics, and you deny the right of any citizen who disagrees with you to have a voice in what is supposed to be a pluralistic democracy. Elections have consequences, and are supposed to have consequences. One of them is that the elected President gets to appoint judges. If the judge is qualified—and even the most slobbering wacko talking head on MSNBC cannot deny that he is qualified-–then it is fair, appropriate and right that the President’s nomination should be consented to by the Senate.

2. What a gift to a President when he can shock his opponents by behaving responsibly! Kavanaugh is as mainstream a conservative pick as one could imagine. He was nominated to the appeals court by President George W. Bush. Kavanaugh was widely regarded as the least controversial conservative judge that Trump could nominate, which led the usual gang of anti-Trump idiots to conclude that the President would nominate someone else. Allahpundit, the anonymous conservative blogger who is resolutely a NeverTrumper, predicted that Trump would choose Judge Amy Coney Barrett precisely because she would cause the most controversy, and because Trump’s advisors were telling him not to. It was poor commentary and prognostication based on anti-Trump bias, and sure enough, the President made Allahpundit look stupid.

3. Wait, what? The New York Times actually ran an op-ed by Yale Law School professorAkhil Reed Amar praising the Kavanaugh nomination! He writes,

“The nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to be the next Supreme Court justice is President Trump’s finest hour, his classiest move. Last week the president promised to select “someone with impeccable credentials, great intellect, unbiased judgment, and deep reverence for the laws and Constitution of the United States.” In picking Judge Kavanaugh, he has done just that. In 2016, I strongly supported Hillary Clinton for president as well as President Barack Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court, Judge Merrick Garland. But today, with the exception of the current justices and Judge Garland, it is hard to name anyone with judicial credentials as strong as those of Judge Kavanaugh.”

How did THAT slip through? Here was the Times’ ridiculous headline this morning: FORMER BUSH AIDE IS TRUMP’S PICK FOR THE COURT.

The man is a lawyer, legal scholar, judge, law professor, and former Supreme Court law clerk…and “Bush aide” is what the Times thinks its readers most need to know about him?

4. Ethics 101: Revenge isn’t ethical. Make no mistake: the Democratic and progressive fury is mostly fueled by anger regarding Mitch McConnell’s successful and unethical refusal to let the Senate vote on the Merrick Garland nomination. This is Rationalization 2 A., Sicilian Ethics, or “They had it coming,” in its purest form, short of hanging Republican leaders on hooks:

“This argues that wrongdoing toward a party isn’t really wrong when the aggrieved party has aggrieved the avenger. The victim of the unethical conduct no longer deserves ethical treatment because of the victim’s own misconduct. But the misconduct of a victim never justifies unethical conduct directed against that victim.”

5. Well, there goes any remaining respect I had for law professors….This has to be read to be believed. A real LSU law professor, Ken Levy, argues that the “McConnell Rule” is now a law of the land, and that Senate Democrats can sue Mitch McConnell for violating it. Then, when a court agrees, it can prevent the Senate from considering Trump’s nomination, and force the Senate to reverse the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch. One doesn’t have to be a lawyer to pick this insane theory into pieces. It makes no sense, and at its threshold, Levy’s crackbrain theory begins with a mistake: “The McConnell Rule” was based on the specious argument that nominations shouldn’t be considered before Presidential elections, not mid-year elections.

4. Ethics 101: Revenge isn’t ethical. Make no mistake: the Democratic and progressive fury is mostly fueled by anger regarding Mitch McConnell’s successful and unethical refusal to let the Senate vote on the Merrick Garland nomination. This is Rationalization 2 A., Sicilian Ethics, or “They had it coming,” in its purest form,

Quite a convenient argument since it ends in a result you like and by making the original ethical behavior consequence-free encourages it in the future.

There should have been a vote on Garland. So what do you propose now? That’s not Trump’s fault, it’s not Gorsuch’s fault, and it’s not Kavanaugh’s fault. Trump should not have one of the arrows of the Presidency taken out of his quiver because the Legislative Branch, before Trump was President, refused to vote on a previous President’s nomination.

Only one party allowed to appoint judges? How did Kagan and Sotomayor get on?

This is dishonest or ignorant. Jack was supportive of Garland and has stated repeatedly that he should have been given a vote. He even says in that particular quote it was unethical. You are basically arguing that it is ok for a wrong to be done because another wrong was done. You can hardly defend your position of Tyranny and can nowhere point to how the whole situation is unconstitutional.

There is nothing in his statement that indicates “only one party is allowed to appoint judges.” Jack’s merely pointing out that the Democrats and progressives are attempting to engage in revenge for the unethical act by Mitch McConnell and the Senate in refusing to consider the Merrick Garland nomination. That revenge is also unethical. That’s all, at least, for the part you quoted.

So your statement and conclusion are, not to put too fine a point on it, irrational. Furthermore, “liking” the result, at least to the extent Jack described his feelings about the nominee, extend to pointing out he is a mainstream conservative, qualified for the Supreme Court. He also pronounced Garland qualified and condemned the Republicans for not
voting on his nomination.

There is nothing in his statement that indicates “only one party is allowed to appoint judges.”

The hell there’s not. If it is acceptable, in practice, for Republicans to deny Democratic presidents the right to appoint judges because such denial has no consequences but not acceptable, in practice, for Democrats to return the favor then only one party is allowed to appoint judges.

Would rolling over and voting for Trumps judges in any way shape or form prevent Republicans from stealing more seats if given the chance? Will rolling over and voting for Trump judges return what was stolen?

McConnell changed the rules. If you want the old ones back, make amends first.

It wasn’t and isn’t a rule. He defied a norm, just as Reid defied a norm by ending the filibuster for judges, just as Reid defied a norm using “reconciliation” for ACA, just as Ted kennedy et al defied a norm by Borking Bork for being too powerful a legal mind. Nothing in the Constitution says a Senate majority has to vote on a President’s choice, but good government demands it. You don’t encourage healthy norms by continuing to defy them because “they have it coming.”

You don’t encourage healthy norms by allowing violations to be consequence free. Are you going to pretend that Republicans don’t intend to do it again? You’re arguing for a situation where one side does something, gets away with it, and gets to do it again. The other side is denied the ability to the same.

Two sets of rules.

Good governance would have repudiated McConnell. Republicans did have the ability to remove him as leader, They still do at any time. They even had the ability to remove him, bring Garland up for a vote and then reinstall him if they really wanted to.

They didn’t.

Republicans and their voters are estopped from complaining about any tactic used to stop republican judges for as long as Gorsuch remains seated, and then for a period after that for as long as Gorsuch held that seat.

The use of a late hit, she-said/he-said smear against Clarence Thomas and the Bork fiasco were no less unforgivable than McConnell’s trick, speaking of estoppel. Nor was Harry Reid’s end around the House to get the ACA passed. All equally unethical, all technically legal, all dirty politics. The way to stop such crap is to stop it, not to get into an endless cycle of revenge and tit for tat. Both parties havd just cause to be pissed, and both parties have degraded the system. I don’t play favorites. You are, however: Harry and Ted’s slime doesn’t bother you as much as Mitch’s. I can’t roll that way.

Sorry, dicks are not on my diet card. Also, what kind of comment is that to make to anybody? Perhaps this is more evidence for Jack’s “Nation of assholes.”

The hell there’s not. If it is acceptable, in practice, for Republicans to deny Democratic presidents the right to appoint judges because such denial has no consequences but not acceptable, in practice, for Democrats to return the favor then only one party is allowed to appoint judges.

Nobody said either of those things. That’s just a strawman, as you perfectly well know, and it doesn’t represent either the reality or even a rational theory of the situation.

First of all, who said there were no consequences to the Republican action? If the Dems were in the majority, they no doubt would return the favor. It wouldn’t be any more ethical than what the Republicans did, though.

Jack has pointed out, quite rationally I believe, that revenge is not ethical. It doesn’t become ethical because you’re really, really, really super-double-secret mad about the original ethics breach, or if in your opinion the security and freedom of the free world is at stake. It is still unethical.

Furthermore, the facts in evidence don’t come within a light-century of supporting your conclusion about only one party being allowed to appoint judges. If the Democrats were in power in the Senate (and they manifestly are not), and there was a Democratic president, they would doubtless appoint and confirm all manner of like-minded judges.

Would rolling over and voting for Trumps judges in any way shape or form prevent Republicans from stealing more seats if given the chance? Will rolling over and voting for Trump judges return what was stolen?

I’ll answer your question with a question: If the Democrats were in power in the Senate, do you think they would vote on Kavanaugh? No, because the Republicans have given them an excuse not to. It wouldn’t be ethical, just like the Garland matter, but it would be reality.

McConnell changed the rules. If you want the old ones back, make amends first.

No need. The Democrats are not in power, and they simply don’t matter anymore except to the extent they can persuade a Republican to defect, and their own vulnerable senators to vote no. Just because it was unethical for the Republicans to do what they did doesn’t make it ethical for the Democrats to return the favor in kind. That’s what Jack said.

Are you arguing the alternative, that revenge is ethical? If so, make your case, because so far you haven’t even tried.

Did anyone? It was not only wrong, it was stupid. If Hillary had won and the Democrats had taken the Senate, she would have appointed a justice who made Garland look like Increase Mather. And then McConnell’s reckless gamble would have backfired horribly, and nobody would ever try such a dumb and offensive tactic again.

My point exactly. Progressives moved the ball too quickly, and now the push back (same treatment from their foes) will be ugly.

They started destroying anyone who opposed them, using any means (legal or illegal) and the other side realizes that this is an existential problem.

Wow. I just realized that it might not be unethical to respond in kind. War rules may apply. Right?

(Not sure of the logic here, but it seems that decisions made to avoid destruction/domination/death are not unethical per se, like the Allies bombing German cities to get at the German industries supporting the war, and to break the will of the German people to continue fighting.)

Oh, yeah, Valky: these are the choices Democrats have made my entire life, that you suddenly don’t like now that the GOP has slouched down the same road. It was FINE when progressives did things like this… but after all, you guys are on the right side of history! (all facts to the contrary)

I’m one person who isn’t giggling at the image. Valky, we don’t need another Chris, we don’t need another Scott Jacobs, and I’ll tell you right now, if face to face you told me to “eat a bag of dicks” I wouldn’t respond with one of my own insults. I’d slap you. I’m not talking a regular bitch-slap either. I’m talking the kind of smack that would knock you sideways five feet and leave the side of your face one huge bruise. You don’t talk to other adults that way, and if you do, you take the consequences.
What the hell makes you think ranting and name-calling is the way to handle a substantive policy dispute? What the hell makes you think there’s any right to revenge now because your party blew it in back to back elections? Most of all, what the hell makes you think it’s all right to viciously attack those who just don’t see it your way and never will?

I don’t hate you, at your best you actually have a geek chic element, but when you let your anger take over, as you have here, you come off as nothing but hateful and destructive. Hateful and destructive is not a good look for someone from a party that’s supposed to be about tolerance, acceptance, and all that other stuff. Unfortunately, understanding hypocrisy isn’t too big on the blue side of the aisle these days, and it hasn’t been for more than a decade.

Chuck Schumer is the biggest hypocrite of them all in this situation, being a willing accomplice to Samuel Alito’s poor treatment by his own party and voting against John Roberts without a backward glance, despite both men being eminently qualified, saying openly that no more justices should be considered by the Senate while GWB was in office after the 2006 elections, then saying the exact opposite thing when Scalia died in the final year of Obama’s tenure (flip-flop) and now saying the opposite again (flip-flop-flip). Now he’s saying he will oppose this eminently qualified man with everything he’s got, before he’s even participated in a hearing and encouraging people like you to talk and act unhinged.

Are you that unhinged and out of control of your passions that you are going to be this hypocrite’s rage puppet? I’d point out to you that you’ve already been dinged here once when you let your emotions get the better of you. Although I can’t read Jack’s mind or speak for him, it’s logical, just as in the civil service, that the authority is less likely to be magnanimous with someone who’s already been punished once and the message has failed to get through. I don’t know if you talk and rant like this in real life, but if you do, you shouldn’t be surprised if there are consequences.

I keep coming back to The Troubles as a reference here, but I think it fits. Don’t get so caught up in how right you are to hate the other guy that you fail to see he’s hating you right back, and don’t think that the fact you hate the other guy so much means he is helpless or powerless, especially when the facts say otherwise. The Protestants in Northern Ireland weren’t, the UVF and UDL can testify to that. The Indians in Jersey City and New Brunswick weren’t, as the so-called Dotbusters eventually found out. The conservatives in this country aren’t, and those who try to intimidate us, bully us, or attack us will find out very quickly that we aren’t. I don’t want it to come to that, but sometimes if the other side wants a war you have no choice to say “let it begin here.”

I really enjoy the debate that transpires on Jack’s blog and a certain level of jealousy exists with the argumentive abilities displayed, but then “Bag of Dicks” and now your response, Steve, surfaces and maybe that jealousy will just evaporate?

Over a month later … finally catching up.
Of all people to say I’d slap you. I’m not talking a regular bitch-slap either. I’m talking the kind of smack that would knock you sideways five feet and leave the side of your face one huge bruise. You don’t talk to other adults that way, and if you do, you take the consequences.
What the hell makes you think ranting and name-calling is the way to handle a substantive policy dispute?

Talk about a ranter and name-caller, you’ve been the worst … (and I see you are still at it a bit further down the comments) and what made you think you’d get away with it? At least, you are flat refusing to apologize — not even going to use your high-school bully-buddy role models or your mood problems as an excuse again.

And no, I’m not defending Valky – she is quite able to do it for herself, almost as well as Jack can. Just letting you know your threat of doing physical harm to someone for saying something, anything, is about as childish as it gets. And just as a child snipes from ambush knowing it can’t be harmed, you use the Net to hide behind so you can spew poison just to relieve yourself whenever you feel the need.

I am extremely angry at your inability to control your tantrums – not because of your choice of targets (I think that is fortuitous), but because you smear this whole Reply section. All of us.

That makes no sense. The “one party” you reference was holding a strong enough hand that it could stop a vote on Garland cold. In the best of all possible worlds it shouldn’t have, but the president from that “other party” had spent his time strutting and insulting and baiting the one party instead of forging the relationships necessary for cutting a deal when one needed to be cut. That other party had unimpressed the American people to the point of losing its Senate majority. That’s not the case here. Like it or not, that other party is holding a very weak hand. The wise know when they are holding a weak hand and try to get the best result they can from that weak hand. Blustering, fearmongering, and talking like this is a war they can win, like Sanders, Harris, et al, is foolish. Anger is not a platform. Fear is not a platform. Hatred of the president is not a platform. Bitterness over a blown election is definitely not a platform. Sorry, but this is another opportunity for you to castrate and burn Mitch McConnell that’s going to pass you by.

Opposition research being sent around about (SCOTUS Nominee) Brett Kavanaugh, accuses him of calling Hillary Clinton a bitch 21 years ago–in a private setting among friends where HE WAS ALLEGEDLY SEEN TO MOUTH THE B-WORD BUT NOT ACTUALLY SAY IT. (caps mine)

”The Washington Post’s Robert Costa tweeted several days ago about a snippet from a book by former conservative journalist turned Democratic Party activist David Brock about a gathering he attended at the home of Laura Ingraham to watch the 1997 State of the Union address by President Bill Clinton.

“Brock wrote he saw Kavanaugh, who at the time worked for Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr investigating the Clintons, sitting across from him at Ingraham’s place mouthing the word, ‘bitch’ as First Lady Hillary Clinton appeared on the TV screen.

“Brock wrote he was so upset he had to leave the room to light up a cigarette.”

Sooo, cigarettes siphon off abject horror? Who knew? Do other tobacco products, (pipes/cigars/cigarillos/stogies/chew/sniff/dip/plugs, et al) or E-Cig vaping, have the same affect?

And what; no pearls to clutch or fainting couch upon which to swoon?

Anywho, if that’s the standard: I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party, as a Justice to the Supreme Court Of The United States.

Being partially deaf, I have developed a limited ability to read lips. ‘Bitch’ and ‘But’ look a lot alike, especially from across the room, as does ‘butt’. Not to mention ‘bee’, ‘butte’, ‘pitch’ and several other words I could name. The point being, unless this guy is trained as a lip reader, he has no idea what Kavanaugh said. For all he knows, he might have been coughing.

Tobacco do absolutely nothing for abject horror, but leaving the room might help. Any excuse?

Much of the hysterics we see now is cold, calculated, cynical and very effective fund raising technique. It seems that there are a lot of people out there who seem to enjoy becoming agitated and so riled up that they will throw money at any politician who seems to be promising to fight for whatever the righteous cause may be. These politicians know perfectly well that they are just putting on a show to raise money.

The trouble is, it works better for the right than the left. The right has always been motivated by judicial consequences. The left, not so much, although at this particular point in history, the left will be outraged by virtually anything.

But ultimately, any political motivation from this particular issue benefits the right more. Unfortunately, the Dems are in a trick bag – they must assail Kavanaugh with enough vigor to prevent the left from primarying them. I think the Dems understand this is largely fait accompli due to the nuclear option employed by both parties, but they have no choice but to make this a partisan scrum.

Politically, I don’t really blame the Democrats, there’s no way making this easy will do anything but give the whacky left even more power and influence, and I think we should all hope that doesn’t happen. I don’t think that argument would make it anywhere near ethically defensible, though.

But I do wonder if there is any real reason not to let the loony left take control of the party, they seem to be pulling the strings anyway. What’s the difference, sez I?

1) I am concerned on gay rights issues but not in a panic. He has not made enough opinions known on those issues. But I knew in the current Climate we would not see a Catholic like Amy. I hoped I Prayed. I knew I would not get. A justice that feels as I do on Capitol punishment. But hey I got 70% of my shopping basket.
2) his search and asking opinions Was good this past week he has been I dare say Presidental.
3) I know I kept rereading the masthead, is times going back to responsible journalism. Or are we being punked.
4) it is not ethical,and the argument he put forward was that we should wait to see what the next president wanted. That will not fly here. Should not have flown then. And I felt it was bordering on treasonous, But while revenge in this case is not ethical, look who will be leading the charge. I am saddened and hopefully we can rise above it.
5) you covered my point.

And is willing to be wrong. Not that he is wrong, mind you: just willing to see both sides. Refreshing.

I have learned a great and previously un-guessed-at viewpoint from Rip already. His grammar and sentence structure may be hurried, but he is effective nonetheless, unlike Valky or Chris, who just want to call names and rarely bring a cogent point to the table. They are certain they are right, and are frustrated that they have lost power mainly because they act like they do.

Americans have had enough of progressive lies and bully tactics. Common Americans are pushing back, and those raised to believe that power is their birthright cannot cope with a simple setback like losing the Oval Office.

Regarding 5: I have not studied this since law school 20 years ago, but the phrase “political question” comes to mind. I can’t see any court touching a case that has to do with the internal workings of a co-equal branch.
-Jut

I do so wish that Trump had nominated Merrick Garland, and then when the insta-protesters objected, (and really, they were filling in the name of the nominee with Magic Markers on their pre-made placards as it was announced), immediately withdrawn the name in response to the reasoned opposition to Garland.
Alternatively, it could have been great if Trump decided to “consider a bit further” at the last minute and postponed the announcement for a day or two, sending protesters scrambling for accommodations/$ from their sponsors, and newsroom staffs to the nearest bar.
Instead of this sort of (granted, irresponsible) civic hilarity, we have utterly predictable, standard issue left-wing horseshit.

Since Jack has been grousing about his references going unacknowledged, let’s all take a moment and recall Eugene O’Neill’s “The Iceman Cometh” and the joke from when the title derived: “Has the iceman come yet?” “No, but he’s breathing hard.” A personal favorite. Of course, refrigerators made jokes from the ice box ear a little obscure, I guess. But my parent’s era enjoyed it.

Elections have consequences, and are supposed to have consequences. One of them is that the elected President gets to appoint judges. If the judge is qualified—and even the most slobbering wacko talking head on MSNBC cannot deny that he is qualified-–then it is fair, appropriate and right that the President’s nomination should be consented to by the Senate.

That’s the way the system is supposed to work, yes.

Now let’s look at the nominee’s recent decision that was hastily overturned on appeal for being outrageously incompetent.

The one that said in practice that as long as someone could have an abortion illegally, preventing them from having a legal one in the US wasnt putting in any impediment, and was no hardship. The legal reasoning involved indicated gross dishonesty on his part.

” Government officials have also said they are not blocking the girl from getting an abortion because she could voluntarily return to her home country. The government, however, acknowledged that abortion is illegal in the girl’s home country, which is not identified in filings.”

The nominee was fine with this option, or a delay of at least 5 weeks to run out the clock on legal abortion in Texas by 3 weeks. He saw neither as being any real inconvenience.

He then criticised the appeals court that overruled this extraordinary decision for introducing ” abortion on demand” without oversight, ignoring the fact that the petitioner had already been through the legal process of review to get permission before ever coming before him.

I don’t know where you got this, but it’s factually wrong. He’s an appellate judge, on a panel. He didn’t make a decision. He wrote a dissent. Dissents are completely different from decisions. He wasn’t over-rules, he was out voted. And his dissent was an anti-illegal immigration position, not anti-abortion. He believes that illegal immigrants do not have an automatic right to demand all rights that accrue to citizens. I’d like to see SCOTUS address that. An illegal can’t own a gun, as far as I can determine. Even if they have some of the enumerated rights in the Constitution, I can see the logic of denying them the court-determined rights. The illegal teen’s country didn’t allow abortion? Not our problem, Sue, and she shouldn’t be able to make it out problem by breaking our laws.

The nominee was right. His colleagues were just being mushy, “compassionate,” at the expense of the law. That’s not incompetence. That’s integrity.

” Kavanaugh was forced to confront the abortion question in 2017 after the Trump administration barred an undocumented minor, known as Jane Doe, from terminating an unwanted pregnancy. The American Civil Liberties Union sued on Doe’s behalf, and the dispute came before a three-judge panel at the D.C. Circuit. Kavanaugh was joined on the panel by Judge Karen L. Henderson, an arch-conservative, and Judge Patricia Millett, a moderate liberal. Doe, who was being held in a federally funded Texas shelter, had already obtained the necessary judicial bypass to get an abortion. But the Trump administration refused to let her see an abortion provider, instead sending her to an anti-abortion “crisis pregnancy center.”

The ACLU argued that the Trump administration was violating Doe’s constitutional rights. Under current Supreme Court precedent, the government may not place an “undue burden” on a woman’s access to abortion. And by preventing Doe from seeing an abortion provider, the ACLU asserted, the government had created such an undue burden. The Trump administration, by contrast, alleged that it had not substantially burdened Doe’s right to an abortion, because if she really wanted one she could just return to her home country. (In fact, abortion is outlawed in Doe’s country of origin.) The government also asserted that Doe had the option of finding a sponsor in the U.S. who would be willing to house her and permit her to terminate her pregnancy.

Hours after hearing the case, the court issued a two-page order that reflected the views of Kavanaugh alone. Millett would’ve ruled that Doe could receive an abortion immediately; Henderson would’ve held that, because she entered the U.S. illegally, Doe has no constitutional rights at all. Kavanaugh, by contrast, struck what he clearly thought to be a middle ground. First, he noted that all parties agreed that Roe v. Wade applies to undocumented minors. Second, he gave the government nearly two weeks to find a sponsor for Doe, removing her from federal custody and transferring responsibility to somebody else. If no sponsor could be found, then the parties could return to court and argue the case all over again, with no assurance that Doe could get her abortion”

So no, the original ruling was not a dissent or opinion. Those came later, when the full Bench overturned Kavenaugh’s ruling.

Facts matter. Of course, I’m not a lawyer, not even American, so will defer to Jack if he says my reading of the facts is incorrect.

Off topic, but the wording of Judge Henderson’s dissent is worth remarking on.

” “In the opinion of the court, the legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show, that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves, nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable instrument…They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit.”

Sorry, that’s the Dred Scott decision.

Henderson wrote that an undocumented minor like Doe “is not a person in the eyes of our Constitution,” meaning she has no rights, let alone the right to an abortion or due process.

Sue Dunim, “So no, the original ruling was not a dissent or opinion. Those came later, when the full Bench overturned Kavenaugh’s ruling., “Facts matter. Of course, I’m not a lawyer, not even American, so will defer to Jack if he says my reading of the facts is incorrect.”

It appears that your information may be a combination of opinions and facts not just facts alone as you implied. Cite your source.

FYI: The best source when talking about an actual ruling, like the ruling you say Kavenaugh made, is the actual ruling.

Is it your opinion that everything Slate writes is “fact” as you implied in your comment above

Read this order, all of it, and see if you’re intelligent enough to figure out how Slate is unethically using their bias to spin this into a massive fear mongering campaign of How Brett Kavanaugh Will Gut Roe v. Wade.

Vox’s equivalent piece was so forced I checked to see if the writer graduated from law school. He didn’t even graduate from college! I’m sure he’s a smart guy and all, and I don’t want to be elitist, but if you are assessing a judge’s judicial and legal philosophy, a serious knowledge of then law would seem to be a mandatory credential.

Here’s the confusion, and I apologize for just dismissing your version because it made no sense. It didn’t, but I should have checked what really happened. 1) A Federal trial court judge rejected Trump administration’s rejection of the illegal teen’s claim that she had a right to a US abortion and must be released from detention to get one.. 2) The Trump administration appealed to the D.C. Circuit, and on appeal, Judge Kavanaugh authored the MAJORITY opinion reversing the lower court’s decision. It was not he opinion or ruling alone. This is where your description lost me. 3) The ACLU appealed for a full Court review, and without even hearing the case, the overwhelmingly left-leaning court reversed itself.(NOT Judge Kavanaugh) and essentially rendered a political. pro-abortion opinion that as far as I can see ignored the law outright.

Then SCOTUS vacated the DC Circuit’s opinion, which was moot by then, since they had rushed the girl into surgery. Nice.

I’ll post on this later. The spinning has been outrageous. No, an illegal immigrant does not have a right, while being detained

The Slate article, that Sue used as her only facts referenced what they called a “Supreme Court precedent“ which stated…

In a bitter, 5-to-4 decision, the Court again reaffirmed Roe, but it upheld most of the Pennsylvania provisions. For the first time, the justices imposed a new standard to determine the validity of laws restricting abortions. The new standard asks whether a state abortion regulation has the purpose or effect of imposing an “undue burden,” which is defined as a “substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability.” Under this standard, the only provision to fail the undue-burden test was the husband notification requirement. In a rare step, the opinion for the Court was crafted and authored by three justices: O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter.

(I boldfaced part of it)

I think this comes into play when talking about this Jane Doe case, an unwed non-adult illegal immigrant who came into the United States illegally with her parents and without the father of the unborn human being. They talk about it not being an undue-burden to notify the “the husband”, but what about it not being an undue-burden to notify the actual father who may not necessarily be a husband. Does the father loose his human right to know that they are going to kill his unborn human child just because the mother is an illegal immigrant and/or a minor?

Is it not an undue-burden to notify the father only when the father is the husband but it is an undue-burden when the father is not the husband?

4) I am waiting to see what happens if there is a Supreme Court vacancy during 2020. Senator McConnell, to be consistent with himself, would have to defer acting on any nomination by Trump until after the election. Right?

5) Silly as it might be, that’s the actual McConnell ‘rule’. It still doesn’t mean that someone could sue him for not following it. The constitution doesn’t place any restrictions on how the Senate must approach its duty of advise and consent.

I find this all to be a silly diversion. There is no “rule.” Precedent for doing something does mean it has to be repeated. McCaonnell’s act was a political tactic, in a specific situation, and a bad one that happened to work. I commits him, or anyone else, to nothing.